Hillary Clinton Needs to be “Nixon-Lite” not “Bush-Lite”

-

nixonstamp.htm
Senator Clinton‘s press office sent this note out today:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE — July 26, 2007
Clinton/CNN Interview to Air this Afternoon
Senator Clinton taped an interview with CNN’s John King this afternoon where she was asked to react to Barack Obama referring to her as “Bush-Cheney Lite.”
The following is what Senator Clinton said (the interview will air later this afternoon on CNN):
SEN. CLINTON: “Well, this is getting kind of silly. I’ve been called a lot of things in my life but I’ve never been called George Bush or Dick Cheney certainly.
We have to ask what’s ever happened to the politics of hope?
I have been saying consistently for a number of years now, we have to end the Bush era of ignoring problems, ignoring enemies and adversaries. And I have been absolutely clear that we’ve got to return to robust and effective diplomacy.
But I don’t want to see the power and prestige of the United States President put at risk by rushing into meetings with the likes of Chavez, and Castro, and Ahmadinejad.”

With all due respect to the frontrunner in the Democratic primary race, Hillary Clinton is wrong on this issue.
America has overdosed on the kind of pugnacious leadership that rejects talking to rivals and, yes, even enemies. Both Clinton and her debate rival Barack Obama know that any serious benchmark of American status, prestige, and moral credibility in the world has fallen precipitously under this administration and needs to be addressed.
Talking to rivals is not acquiescing to them, or appeasing them. Talking to our rivals is in America’s own self interest. I’m not talking about a global feel good session — but rather getting our own portfolio of interests back in some kind of reasonable shape. To do that, we need to be ‘engaged’ with those trying to take advantage of our eroding and eroded global position.
The right answer to the question posed in the YouTube/CNN debates would have been that Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have become empowered by the high price of oil. They are trying to expand their interests regionally and need to be dealt with. Iran’s growing pretensions were entirely predictable and were a natural consequence of the United States deposing Saddam Hussein and puncturing the mystique of American power with a “war of choice” in Iraq that is now a tragic morass.
Chavez also senses a void of American attentions in Latin America and is competing to fill that space as well as to inherit the mantle of lead revolutionary and American antagonizer from Fidel Castro.
But Castro, both brothers, are a different case. Whether one organized a meeting with Fidel or Raul Castro or not — decades of a failed embargo policy against Cuba have not yielded any of the objectives of US foreign policy there. The travel restrictions on Cuban American families themselves essentially compel citizens to choose whether they want to attend their father’s funeral or their mother’s.
Republican House Member Jeff Flake has had the courage to state that if he is going to have his travel restricted anywhere in the world, he’d rather have a Communist government blocking him than his own government in the United States of America.
Hillary Clinton should be honest with Americans about her own direct knowledge that US policy towards Cuba has entirely and utterly failed — and that the perpetuation of an anachronistic Cold War-fashioned policy towards an island nation just off our coast shows an “absence of strategy” and common sense.
Clinton herself has traveled to the land of 1.2 billion communists, the Peoples’ Republic of China, and been an advocate of feminist exchanges and other people to people encounters as examples of the kind of liberalizing currents that can help empower citizens and promote a culture of self-determination. Cuba deserves no less.
IN FACT Senator Clinton, opening up the travel restrictions to Cuba and incrementally lifting the economic embargo may rob Cuba from Hugo Chavez’s own Latin American delusions of grandeur. Chavez is trying to spread his influence in the region by providing much needed oil and cash transfer payments to Cuba and allying himself with the mystique of Castro. I believe that Cubans want to make their own way and not be particularly dependent on any great patron — but ending key aspects of the embargo will enhance America’s weight inside Cuba and diminish Chavez’s.
The same exact logic applies to Syria and Iran. If one wanted to put a speed bump in the way of Iran’s growing influence in the Middle East, then America should start creating a Libya-like track to get Syria back into fully normalized relations with the US and the West — as well as with Israel.
There are clearly problems and hurdles with what I am suggesting — but that kind of maneuvering between the US president and foreign bad guys is called “strategy”. And we need a new strategy of constructive, self-interested, tough-minded engagement with world leaders who are consequential to our well-being and interests.
So, yes — Obama is right that Hillary Clinton articulated a Bush-lite strategy.
Even the surprising, burgeoning realists Katrina vanden Heuvel and Ari Berman at The Nation agree with this view and have knocked back their own Hillary-leaning David Corn.
Let’s hope that we may be able to nudge Senator Clinton and her foreign policy team away from a policy that seems laced with elements of a John Bolton-style, Jesse Helmsian pugnacious nationalism and towards a more Nixon-lite approach — which in my book would demonstrate real 21st century style leadership.
Nixon went to China and negotiated arms deals with the Soviets. Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Gorbachev ended the Cold War.
Will it be Hillary that changes the world and goes to Cuba? to Iran? to Syria?
Or will it be Obama?
— Steve Clemons

Comments

36 comments on “Hillary Clinton Needs to be “Nixon-Lite” not “Bush-Lite”

  1. hillaryandgore says:

    I have some information about money laundering by Hillary Clinton
    Hillary and Gore: Money laundering
    http://hillaryandgore.blogspot.com

    Reply

  2. MP says:

    And if you start having a lot of meetings where nothing much is accomplished for your country, you start to look foolish.

    Reply

  3. MP says:

    I don’t think it’s a matter of “preconditions” per se.
    It’s a matter of doing spade work to ensure–to the degree that it’s possible–that something of value will come from the meeting.
    Never go into a meeting unless you know what you want to come out of it–what you’re willing to give and want to get–and have some reason to think you can achieve those aims.
    I think that, in essence, is what Hillary was talking about and also what Obama would try to do.
    But initial meetings could be just about “getting to know each other”–that might be valuable. But generally, there are a few items that each side wants to get accomplished.

    Reply

  4. rich says:

    JoeCHI and BridgitteL:
    One question: Just what exactly would it COST the US or any sitting President to meet with foreign leaders, without precondition?
    I say there’s no cost (in the abstract), and everything to gain. What’s the value in issuing demands BEFORE a get-down-to-business takes place? That’s what substantive negotiations are for. Preconditions are about getting something for nothing, enforcing high-handed demands prior to and without even talking about it; it’s authoritarian.
    The purpose of preconditions is something other than getting something done.
    Preconditions smack of spoiled baseball players and decadent rock stars; as when Van Halen rioted or refused to play every time the host forgot to ready a large bowl of brown M&Ms for the band.
    Bush has refused to hold talks with Iran for 4 years now because he a) wants to issue orders about how sovereign Iran should run its internal affairs, and b) he prefers ongoing war over peaceful relations. Even though Iran has sent letter after letter asking for talks.
    So explain the value of preconditions–if you can.

    Reply

  5. richard perle says:

    Hey Steve, keep up the good work! I love how you are demonizing Chavez. He better stop sending doctors and financial aid to the poor nations of Latin America – doesn’t he know the only legitimate foreign aid in Latin America is when America sends weapons to dictators?

    Reply

  6. Doug R says:

    I wonder if anyone has done any analysis on just how many world leaders are still the same as when Hillary was First Lady (7 – 15 years ago). Hillary keeps banging on about her experience, as evidenced by her familiarity with so many world leaders. But, I would suspect that many, if not most, of the leaders she claims to know so well, are no longer in office (Spain, Germany, France, UK, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, etc.) Is this really the criteria we should be using to judge Hillary’s experience relative to Obama? I think not.

    Reply

  7. rich says:

    One troubling aspect:
    This haughty hooey about daring “to grant a Presidential AUDIENCE” just reeks of monarchical pretensions entirely at odds with America’s law and character.
    Any candidate who dares to scold another for deigning to meet with a) foreigners, b) commoners, or c) citizens with valid opinions–is plainly unfit for office. That’s not hyperbolae: they may be capable, but they’re clearly unfit.
    There’s a pernicious notion that our Constitution and History are root but not contemporary branch and living leaf of the Tree of Liberty.
    What sort of Man or Candidate is it, that feels free to cast off those time-tested and hard-won principles that secure our liberty and define our political practice?
    What sort of Man or Candidate can refuse to listen to another Citizen–his/her equal by every measure–when it comes to the policies and decisions that determine the fate of the Nation?
    Or refuse entreaty from another Man from another Land–when “All Men were created Equal, endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights”? That quintessential natural law and guiding principle certainly extends beyond our borders. And must be made to apply (to us, by us) beyond our borders.

    Reply

  8. Sandy says:

    I agree with the person who said this whole discussion — at this point — is a truly silly DISTRACTION from what is really most important.
    There is widespread belief among those in a position to know…that Bush-Cheney — before they leave office — will bomb….something. Syria…..Iran….something and escalate WAR and Middle East CONFLICT.
    WHY….WHY….WHY….is there ZERO discussion of what we (meaning those in power in D.C.) should be doing NOW….SOMETHING…..to prevent that?
    NO ONE — Steve, Scott, et al — believes Bush-Cheney should be held ACCOUNTABLE???? REINED IN??? FEARFUL OF BOMBING???
    FIRST THINGS FIRST. Demonstrate an understanding of PRIORITIES!
    These kinds of posts are, in my mind, equivalent to Anna Nicole Smith commentaries or Lindsey Lohan or Britney Spears — did you hear what they said about….??? WHO GIVES A DAMN when the whole damn country and our young people’s FUTURE is at risk?
    Talk about fiddling while Rome burns!
    FRUSTRATING!!!

    Reply

  9. MP says:

    Liz writes: “There is not a dime’s worth of difference in any of these globalist elites. I don’t know too many people in my part that even plan to bother voting.”
    Do you think we’d be where we are today if Gore had become president? If your answer is “yes,” then you’re obligated to vote.

    Reply

  10. JohnH says:

    Steve is right. Hillary is at least Bush/Cheney lite. I think she is Nixon lite.
    Hillary says that she WILL bring the troops home. This echoes Nixon’s declaration during the 1967 campaign that he had a plan to end the Vietnam War. Of course Nixon’s plan was secret, so he couldn’t tell voters what it was. And his plan was really to escalate into Cambodia, Laos, and carpet bomb North Vietnam.
    In contrast to Nixon, Hillary does provide some insight into her plan: she would leave troops to fight Al Qaeda. Of course, that is Bush’s current strategy. And it directly contradicts her statement that she WILL bring the troops home.
    So Hillary’s strategy seems to be to bring a token number of troops home for PR purposes but to continue to prosecute the war, only more effectively. And maybe she WILL bring the troops home–after she has won. Definitely Bush/Cheney lite, Nixonian and Machiavellian.

    Reply

  11. Brigitte L. says:

    sorry, but I do think that Senator Clinton gave the better answer to a very specific question: receiving here or traveling to these characters– unconditionally and in the first year of the presidency. An answer to that needed qualification and Mrs. Clinton gave that.
    It is an entirely different question that her camp and she herself hyped her win on this and that Senator Obama took the bait.

    Reply

  12. JoeCHI says:

    Nixon didn’t meet with China during the first year of his Presidency without preconditions. Ditto for Reagan and the USSR
    Arguing that they did or that they would is intellectually dishonest and is contrary to the public record.

    Reply

  13. JoeCHI says:

    Steve:
    I for one, DO NOT want my President to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of their administration, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea.
    Somebody’s smoking a peace pipe, and it ain’t Senator Clinton. Steve?

    Reply

  14. Arun says:

    I’m genuinely curious: who exactly predicted, BEFORE the war, growing Iranian influence in the region as a result of the war.
    This is such a low-brow inference that even I did think so.
    Replacing Saddam by anything other than another Baathist was bound to increase Iranian influence. The one line reason is that the Iraqi Shia would be more powerful.
    We can go more into how Saddam was the means of keeping Iran in check and the meaning of the Iraq-Iran war, but no need to insult anyone’s intelligence.
    Anyone who didn’t figure this one out ought not to have a say in US foreign policy.

    Reply

  15. Arun says:

    Steve, out of 9 sentences in her answer, Clinton uses 4 to advocate diplomacy.
    I will promise a very vigorous diplomatic effort because I think it is not that you promise a meeting at that high a level before you know what the intentions are.
    But I certainly agree that we need to get back to diplomacy, which has been turned into a bad word by this administration.
    And I will purse very vigorous diplomacy.
    And I will use a lot of high-level presidential envoys to test the waters, to feel the way.
    ________
    Just what do you object to? For the record, I do not favor either Obama or Clinton for President.
    I’m just sick and tired of the kind of dishonesty being spewed out here. In any case anyone who promises to meet half a dozen world leaders in their first year of office, pre-conditions or no preconditions, is not being truthful.

    Reply

  16. Arun says:

    Here is the transcript, perhaps Steve Clemons will read it and then tell us why Clinton and Edwards were wrong.
    Here is the question:
    QUESTION: In 1982, Anwar Sadat traveled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since.
    In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?
    Here is the Obama answer:
    OBAMA: I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them — which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration — is ridiculous.
    (APPLAUSE)
    Now, Ronald Reagan and Democratic presidents like JFK constantly spoke to Soviet Union at a time when Ronald Reagan called them an evil empire. And the reason is because they understood that we may not trust them and they may pose an extraordinary danger to this country, but we had the obligation to find areas where we can potentially move forward.
    And I think that it is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them. We’ve been talking about Iraq — one of the first things that I would do in terms of moving a diplomatic effort in the region forward is to send a signal that we need to talk to Iran and Syria because they’re going to have responsibilities if Iraq collapses.
    They have been acting irresponsibly up until this point. But if we tell them that we are not going to be a permanent occupying force, we are in a position to say that they are going to have to carry some weight, in terms of stabilizing the region.
    Here is the Clinton answer:
    CLINTON: Well, I will not promise to meet with the leaders of these countries during my first year. I will promise a very vigorous diplomatic effort because I think it is not that you promise a meeting at that high a level before you know what the intentions are.
    I don’t want to be used for propaganda purposes. I don’t want to make a situation even worse. But I certainly agree that we need to get back to diplomacy, which has been turned into a bad word by this administration.
    And I will purse very vigorous diplomacy.
    And I will use a lot of high-level presidential envoys to test the waters, to feel the way. But certainly, we’re not going to just have our president meet with Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez and, you know, the president of North Korea, Iran and Syria until we know better what the way forward would be.
    (APPLAUSE)
    Here is the Edwards answer:
    COOPER: Senator Edwards, would you meet with Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, Kim Jong Il?
    EDWARDS: Yes, and I think actually Senator Clinton’s right though. Before that meeting takes place, we need to do the work, the diplomacy, to make sure that that meeting’s not going to be used for propaganda purposes, will not be used to just beat down the United States of America in the world community.
    But I think this is just a piece of a bigger question, which is, what do we actually do? What should the president of the United States do to restore America’s moral leadership in the world. It’s not enough just to lead with bad leaders. In addition to that, the world needs to hear from the president of the United States about who we are, what it is we represent.
    COOPER: Time.
    EDWARDS: That, in fact, we believe in equality, we believe in diversity, that they are at the heart and soul of what the United States of America is.

    Reply

  17. brat says:

    Nixon lite?
    Illegal bombing of Cambodia? War Criminal?
    That Nixon?
    Puhleeze.
    Senator Clinton needs to be Senator Clinton. She needs to follow her OWN path and absolutely NOT follow the path of a war criminal who’s been dead for over a decade.
    Bleh!

    Reply

  18. Renaldo Blah Blah says:

    Hill the Shill or Bare-Ax or Poser Numero Uno or how in hell does it matter? Hill, Bare-Ax, Mitt, and it’s all the same crap. Mindless, vapid, without intelligent depth or ability to grasp complexity or think outside one of those “special interest” boxes. The predominant political parties offer the American people bland, boorish, ridiculous, meaningless puppets. America has lost the ability to be intellectually expansive and it’s the two-party corruption of the process. Why not Ron Paul? Why not Mike Gravel? Why not Jesse ‘the body’ Ventura? For the love of God, why not anyone but the “pretty faces” being tossed at ‘we the people’ at present?

    Reply

  19. liz says:

    Every one of these issues is a distraction. This early presidential race is a huge distraction from how much everyone in America hates Bush and Cheney. It distracts us from how much is wrong in America.
    I certainly do not care one bit about Hilliary. Can’t do Edwards, Obama, and forget Republicans. I truly know I have no respresentation and that this sham of a government will continue no matter who is elected.
    There is not a dime’s worth of difference in any of these globalist elites. I don’t know too many people in my part that even plan to bother voting. Some court will appoint the next president anyway…..
    Bush Clinton Bush Clinton Bush….. ooooooooooo my

    Reply

  20. Richard W. Crews says:

    Aren’t there a whole lot of people here who think they own something in Cuba? Something that they think they are due for? In other words, the Republicans are running on : We won’t work with Cuba until they give back our whorehouses to our Mafia.

    Reply

  21. ... says:

    missing from my above post
    hilary quote >>I have been saying consistently for a number of years now, we have to end the Bush era of ignoring problems, ignoring enemies and adversaries.<< she is ignoring the problems, enemies and adversaries running the usa gov’t at present.. that is a huge mistake on the part of the democraps.. impeachment is necessary now.

    Reply

  22. ... says:

    poa – yes i am – to your question..
    hilary quote >>I have been saying consistently for a number of years now, we have to end the Bush era of ignoring problems, ignoring enemies and adversaries.>But I don’t want to see the power and prestige of the United States President put at risk by rushing into meetings with the likes of Chavez, and Castro, and Ahmadinejad.” << the power and prestige of the us president is in the toilet and all she isn’t even up to offering draino… pathetic..
    one word folks which needs to become a reality
    IMPEACHMENT of the thugs running the usa at present…
    hilary is cut from the same friggin clothe and is no different.

    Reply

  23. bellgong says:

    Hillary is playing for the win. Normal tactical diplomacy can involve provocative statements and refusing unilateral talks in the hope of reaching a final condition in which their side has given up least. It is no big deal, she will use the UN. And, she is keeping the media from spinning the Dems as capitulaters. Thank her.
    How she will reduce troops and not have troop losses rising, $6 a gallon gas caused by pipeline sabotage and a dollar in free fall is anybody’s guess. But it is a solemn moment, the executive branch can be taken back from CheneyCo. Hold together, left! Give up a little of that high moral ground to those in the center, whose votes you need. The US isn’t electing an angel, this Democrat will be taking over the reins of bloody ongoing war. If congress moves left as well, we’ll have a place to start fixing things.

    Reply

  24. Marky says:

    By the way, I’m not too confident about Edwards’ foreign policy acumen either.
    In that area, I would rank the candidates as follows:
    1) Richardson
    2)HRC
    3&4) Biden and Dodd
    5)Obama
    6)Edwards.

    Reply

  25. Marky says:

    I don’t see what substantive differences Obama has to back up his claim of having a superior foreign policy. As far as I can tell, he hardly has any foreign policy at the moment, and what I have seen, zigging towards partial withdrawal of troops from Iraq (Obama wants to leave a substantial residual force, I believe), zagging towards war with Iran via tough no-nukes talk. By the way, I think that harping on his politics in 2002, when he wasn’t even in Congress, is becoming a negative for him. It’s like some guy saying “I got an A in history when I was in 5th grade!!!”. We get it. You were right then, but what have you done for us in the Senate? Nothing, right?
    I appreciated that Richardson was willing to define his foreign policy philosophy by talking about Darfur, and saying he would not send US troops there. He has also called for total withdrawal from Iraq. He represents a clear choice.
    As far as the Bush-Cheney lite comment,Steve, I think you are missing how much that comment will turn off Democratic voters. Hillary Clinton is someone who has suffered 15 years of vilification from the right wing slime machine. She has handled herself with incredible dignity in the face of monstrous accusations. Whether or not you like her politics (I am on the fence about supporting her), you should be appalled that a young hobbledehoy like Obama thinks he can start saying who is Democrat and who is not.
    I find Obama very lacking in substance, and in this exchange I find him lacking in style or grace as well.

    Reply

  26. Sandy says:

    Gee, one might guess this whole Clinton-Obama exchange blossoming now into….uh….”controversy” (???)…..was set in place by Karl Rove or Ken Melhman. They must be just delighted, rubbing their hands gleefully. No doubt they already have some ad time all set up for later ….to show how “confused” the Dems are when it comes to national security….or diplomacy. Since they know W will be charged with having done….none.
    Way to play right into their hands.

    Reply

  27. steambomb says:

    This country is toast. Anyone else sick of this horseshit?
    Posted by PissedOffAmerican at July 26, 2007 10:13 PM
    I am. But sadly I am a man of limited means and am stuck here to carry on with hope for a solution at one point or another.

    Reply

  28. steambomb says:

    Both Clinton and Obama as the presidential candidate bother me. I fear that it will be all it will take to have a whole bunch of bigot groups like the clan and the arian nation undermining the vote or doing what ever else they could to stop either a woman or a black from becoming president. Look at all the brain dead hicks that voted for Bush. I do hope I am wrong but I fear that it would create that type of scenario and only a HUGE turnout by young progressive voters would be able to overcome it. If I had to choose one over the other it would be Obama. Why? Because when powerful people like Rupert Murdoch give Large sums of money to politicians they usually have good reason to do so and expect a return on their investment.

    Reply

  29. Carroll says:

    Well, can we lay off the Steve bashing for a moment. You are killing the messenger here..like a double agent he has to sally forth into enemy territory and report back…and he can’t do that if he blows his cover.
    On to Hillary…I would have voted for her long ago, now not. She can’t be nudged…she might “appear” to be nudged but she won’t budge. Whatever good ideals or ideas she has will always be subject to what is good for her politically.
    She has staked out the special interest groups like AIPAC and the Cubans and Jews in Florida and is playing to them in her foreign policy. We don’t need and don’t have time for any more of foreign policy by special interest political crapola.
    Obama?…piff!
    Still no one to vote for.
    Where is the Happy Warrior?

    Reply

  30. dan says:

    Oh btw Steve, while you are wasting your time attacking Hillary, It appears that Pat Tillman was executed by his friends.
    Respect for Colin Powell ? never
    I am beginning to lose respect for you, Steve.

    Reply

  31. donailin says:

    >>Will it be Hillary that changes the world and goes to Cuba? to Iran? to Syria?
    Or will it be Obama?<<
    I’ll take President Edwards for five hundred, Alex!

    Reply

  32. PissedOffAmerican says:

    I see that Steve is still selling us the same old crap. Business as usual, vote for either one of these media marketed posturing whores.
    Eenie meany miney mo……
    This country is toast. Anyone else sick of this horseshit?

    Reply

  33. temoc94 says:

    I think this is wrong. Hillary did not say that she would refuse to negotiate with these countries. She said that she would not reward them with a presidential audience right of the bat. Nixon sent Kissinger to Moscow well ahead of his own visit there, to test the waters. That is exactly what Hillary said she would do: send envoys first. Which makes sense, because — as your own folks at New America Foundation have said — it may very well be that Iran *won’t* reciprocate to a U.S. overture. If it’s Nixonian politics you want, Barack is the one who’s set himself up to fail, not Hillary.

    Reply

  34. Saif says:

    Steve,
    You said “Iran’s growing pretensions were entirely predictable and were a natural consequence of the United States deposing Saddam Hussein…”
    I’m genuinely curious: who exactly predicted, BEFORE the war, growing Iranian influence in the region as a result of the war. I can not recall anyone saying that, and it does seem to me as a classic example of war outcomes that can not be foreseen being explained in retrospect and dismissed as entirely predictable. A classic example of Robert Trivers’ self-deception.
    Can anyone provide me with any reference to someone predicting growing Iranian influence before the War?

    Reply

  35. RonK, Seattle says:

    Steve, I’ve been curious to see your take on this exchange, and must admit you’ve caught me by surprise. I take issue with your exercise in reading comprehension.
    The ‘tuber’s question was specific to presidential face time — unconditionally, and in the first year of office.
    Face time is a prized commodity among elected officials, high US bureaucrats and diplomats, media muckety-mucks, even direct WH staff, not to mention envoys and heads of 100+ less troublesome but equally important states … and few of them ever see the POTUS without preconditions.
    The first year in office can be make-or-break, and the successful candidate starts running out of time even before Inauguration Day. Prep, execution and clean-up of five summits takes a big cut out of available time if nothing happens, and even more if something does, and discomfits the perhaps 500 to 1,000 aforementioned others who lose their places in line to make room for our five conspicuous rogues.
    Clinton FP has always been high-engagement, in clear contrast to Bush-Cheney. The shoe doesn’t fit.

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *